MKJV: having come, recline (there is no original word for at
once, nor to eat (then they did not sit down, but
reclined.)<

First off, there is a word for
"at once." It is translated as "immediately"
and placed earlier in the sentence in the MKJV. Which is the
correct location for the word would be a matter of debate.

Second, "Come" (or
"having come") is an aorist participle. And translating
it as "having come" is a perfectly legitimate
translation. This form is how I usually translate this form in
the ALT. However, one usage of a participle is as an imperative.
So the NKJV is legitimate also. See Part Four of the Grammatical
Renderings section of the Companion
Volume to the ALT for more on the translation of participles.

Third, as for "sit down to
eat," again, the MKJV is more technically correct in that
people reclined to eat at the time. And the words "to
eat" should be italicized as they are not specifically in
the text. However, they are needed to indicate why the command to
recline is being given. So for the ALT I am adding the words in
brackets.

>NKJV: Luke 17:8, for my supper

MKJV: that I may eat<

Here, the MKJV is correct. The word is a
verb ("I may eat"), not a noun ("supper").

>NKJV: Luke 20:16, Certainly not

MKJV: Let it not be (the Greek does not say either God,
or forbid [as in the KJV], nor Certainly)<

The Greek phrase here is me genoito.
It expresses in the strongest terms possible a negative in Greek.
So any translation that brings out this meaning is appropriate.
Either the NKJV or MKJV translation would fit the bill. For the
ALT I chose to use "Absolutely not." See under
"Optative Mood" in Part Two of the Grammatical Renderings section for more on this phrase.

>NKJV: Luke 22:41, kneeled down

MKJV: placing the knees (3 Greek words)<

Here, the MKJV is most literally
correct. However, Friberg includes the following:
"idiomatically tithenai ta gonata,lit. place
the knees, i.e. bend the knees, kneel down (MK
15.19)." So the NKJV is a legitimate idiomatic rendering.

>NKJV: Luke 23:11, treated Him with contempt and mocked
[Him], arrayed Him in a gorgeous robe, (Jesus' garment was never
said to be a robe in the Greek)

MKJV: humiliating Him with his guardsmen, and mocking [Him) by
putting luxurious clothing around Him <

First note, that Green only gives part
of the verse. In the case of the NKJV, he has left out that the
NKJV puts the words "Then Herod with his men of war" at
the beginning of the verse. The words "with his men of
war" would be equivalent to "with his guardsmen"
in the MKJV. The MKJV has followed the Greek word order more
closely, but in doing so has left the verse in awkward English
format. For the ALT I will be following the practice of the NKJV.

Otherwise, each of the other differences
between the two versions would be lexically or grammatically
possible. But it take some explaining to show how. So I will just
look at the one point Green mentions.

Was Jesus arrayed in a "robe"
or just "clothing?" Friberg defines the words as,
"clothing, robe, garment." So either reading is
possible.

>NKJV: Luke 23:46, He breathed His last

MKJV: He breathed out the spirit (translation of exepneusen,
#1606) <

In both cases, the entire phrases given
are the translation of one Greek word. Friberg defines it as,
"lit. breathe out; euphem. expire, die (MK
15.37)." So "breathed out" is the most literal
translation. However, the words "the spirit" are not
indicated by the Greek word, and are not bracketed as added in
the MKJV. So here Green does what he charges the NKJV with,
adding words without indicating as such.

Meanwhile, the NKJV also adds "His
last." Bottom line, the expression is hard to translate
literally into English. Either one has to add words to make
"breathed out" meaningful, or give an idiomatic
translation like simply "He expired" as in the NKJV
Interlinear.

>NKJV: Luke 24:5, they were afraid

MKJV: them becoming terrified<

The NKJV actually has the word
"as" before this phrase. This is important as it shows
they are taking the participle in the temporal sense, a
legitimate usage. However, Green is right in that the verb more
specifically means "become" than simply the verb of
being. However, it is an aorist. So a more literal rendering
would be "having become." So the NKJV gets the tense
more exact, while the MKJV gets the meaning more exact.

As for "they" vs.
"them," the pronoun is a genitive. So them" or
"their" would be the most literal rendering. But given
the wording here, to use "them" as the NKJV does is
very awkward. Even Greens own LITV changes it to
"they." So the MKJV is slightly more literal, but more
awkward.

>NKJV: Luke 24:30, as He sat at the table with them, that
He took bread

MKJV: as He reclined with them, taking the loaf (singular - no
word for sat, or for table)<

This is the third time Green has brought
this one up. Yes, "reclined" is more culturally
accurate than "sat." But something does need to be
added so it is clear they are reclining to eat, and not to rest
or sleep. But such clarifying words should be marked as added.

>NKJV: John 1:3, were made through Him

MKJV: came into being through Him (twice; also in verse
11)<

The verb here is the same as that in
Luke 24:5 above. It is more than the simple verb of being. So
something like "came into being" or "came to
be" would be more accurate than the NKJVs "were
made."

>NKJV: John 1:5, the darkness did not comprehend it

MKJV: did not overtake it<

I struggled with how to translate the
verb in question here for the ALT. The problem is, the word has a
wide range of meanings, with two of them possibly fitting in this
context.

Note how Friberg mentions John 1:5
twice. The word in this context can "possibly" mean
"overpower, gain control over" or it
"perhaps" means "find out about, comprehend,
understand." So not being sure which to choose, initially I
used the primary translation of "overpower" and then
gave "comprehend" as an alternative translation.

So my primary translation would be
similar to the MKJVs "overtake," and my secondary
translation was the same as the NKJVs rendering. The point
being, either is possible in this context.

But then a reader suggested
"apprehend" for a translation. This English word fit
even better as it is as ambiguous as the Greek word. It can mean
either to "take into "custody" (which would be
similar to "overtake"), or it can mean to
"understand" something (which is similar to
"comprehend" - Websters). So my final translation
incorporates elements of both the NKJV and MKJV.

>NKJV: John 11:43, Lazarus, come forth!

MKJV: Lazarus, Here! Outside!<

Friberg defines the first word in
question as, "adv. here; (1) of place, used as imper.
come, come here (AC 7.3); foll. by imper. come (and) (MT
19.21); (2) of time until now (RO 1.13)." So the
adverb can mean "here" or it can be used as an
imperative and mean "come."

The second word is defined as,
"adverb - (1) adv. out, outside; away; (2) prep. with gen.
out of, outside; (3) ho exo outsider, unbeliever; outer,
physical (2 Cor 4.16); foreign (Ac 26.11) (UBS Dictionary)."
The NKJV has "forth" rather than "out." But
the meaning is the same. So it would appear this is yet another
case where either translation is possible.

However, upon closer inspection, the
rendering of "Lazarus, come out!" would be most
accurate. First off, note that in Friberg, the word only means
"here" when used as an adverb. When it is used as an
imperative it means "come." But Green is using
"here" as an imperative.

Second, L&S specifically state that
the second word, when used with verbs of motion (which
"come" would be in this context), the last word means
"out" and not "outside." So overall, the NKJV
rendering seems more accurate, although "come out!"
would be better yet.

So it would seem there is overwhelming
lexical evidence that the word does NOT "definitely specify
a man." It can and does refer more generally to any human
being or person, not necessarily a male. And less Green claims
these newer lexicons are also influenced by "political
correctness, Baurs lexicon of 1958 (long before
todays PC movement), also gives "human being" as
a basic meaning of the word.

Moreover, it must be asked if
"man" even fits the context of this verse. The word
"man" can refer to any human being, but it more
specifically means an adult, human male. But this verse is
talking about birth, and men are not born, baby human beings are.

So it is not "political
correctness" but lexical evidence and context that is the
reason for the NKJV translation. The MKJV rendering is a possible
rendering of the word, but does not fit this context.

>NKJV: John 16:22, and your joy no one will take from you.

MKJV: no one takes your joy from you.

(What difference does it make? The NKJV with other new
versions take the joy out of the present life, moving it up to a
future time. And this on the basis of only two corrupt Egyptian
mss., B and D. Over 2,000 mss. Have the present tense.)<

First off, there are actually four Greek
manuscripts, along with a variety of ancient translations that
have the future tense (UBS Greek NT). However, I doubt it
is for this reason that the NKJV has the present tense here. The NKJV
Interlinear has the present tense first, then in its second,
more idiomatic translation gives the future tense.

The reason for this is a "special
use" of the present tense is "The Futuristic
Present" according to Dana and Mantey (p.185). However, I
would agree with Green that a present tense should be translated
as such.

But, I dont agree with
Greens interpretation of the use of the future tense. I
dont see how this translation, "takes the joy out of
the present life." With either translation it reads the same
to me, we have joy now and no one "takes" it or
"will take it from us.

>NKJV: John 19:29, so when Jesus had received the sour wine

MKJV: when Jesus had received the sour wine

LITV: when Jesus took the vinegar

(Both the NKJV and the 1993 MKJV are wrong here: The 1998
revised edition of the MKJV correctly says: when Jesus took the
vinegar. Why? Because in Luke 22:18, Jesus said, "I will not
drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God come.
Sour wine is the fruit of the vine." To have Jesus drink the
sour wine instead of vinegar would make Him contradict His
positive words in Luke.<

I can understand Greens desire to
use "vinegar" here rather than "sour wine."
But what is the lexical evidence?

So either translation has lexical
support. But for the reasons Green gives, "vinegar"
would be preferable.

>NKJV: John 20:7, handkerchief

MKJV: cloth, or, gravecloth<

Friberg defines this word as, "face
cloth, handkerchief, napkin (LU 19.20); as used w. a dead
body to bind shut the jaws or wrap the head cloth, kerchief (JN
11.44)." The UBS Dictionary has, "handkerchief;
facecloth (used for the dead)."

So any of the translations given have
lexical support. But the context does favor a more general
"cloth" rather than something specific as a
handkerchief. I used "facecloth" for the ALT.

>NKJV: John 20:17, Do not cling to Me

MKJV: Do not touch (#680) Me<

Friberg lexicon defines this word in the form it appears here
as, "touch, take hold of, hold (JN 20.17)." So
the word can mean simply "touch" but also something
stronger, more in the sense of "hold." And "cling
to" brings out this stronger sense. So either translation
would be possible.

But a point of note, the grammar here is that of a present,
prohibitive imperative. This grammatical form indicates that an
action in process is being commanded to cease. But neither of
these versions indicates this point. I translate this command as
"Stop holding Me" in the ALT. For an in-depth
discussion of this verse, see "Touch Me Not".

>NKJV: Acts 21:32, chief captain

MKJV: chiliarch (a chiliarch was over a thousand
soldiers.)<

The MKJVs "chiliarch" is
basically just a transliteration of the Greek word; it is not a
translation. Now Green is correct in that a chiliarch "was
over a thousand soldiers." However, how many people would
have known this fact, or even that a chiliarch was a military
leader without such a note?

The NKJV gives the word a legitimate
translation. Granted it may not be so specific as to indicate how
many men the military leader was over, but at least its
translation gives the reader some idea that a military commander
is meant.

The UBS Dictionary has, "non-Greek;
uncivilized; foreigner; native (Ac 28.2, 4)." So it would
seem either translation has lexical support.

>NKJV: 1 Cor. 15:47, 8 The first man [was] [of the earth,
made of dust]; the second Man is [the] Lord from heaven. [As was]
the [man of dust, so] also [are those who are made of dust]; and
[as is] the heavenly Man so also [are those who are] heavenly

MKJV: The first man [was] out of earth, earthy. The second Man
[was] the Lord out of Heaven; such the earthy [man], such also
the earthy ones; and such the heavenly Man, such also the
heavenly ones.

NOTE: The many words added by the NKJV (all those bracketed
above) without italicization of the added words. The MKJV has the
exact lexically correct translation of the Greek.<

Green has bracketed a whole bunch or
words in the NKJV as being "added" and says they are
not italicized. In fact, they either are not added, or if they
are, they are italicized.

The following words are italicized in
the NKJV (in order): was, made, is, was, man, are who, are made,
is, Man, are, who are. So the NKJV does seem to be trying to
italicize all added words.

As for the other words Green claims are
added, the first are "of the earth" vs. the MKJVs
"out of earth." The preposition ek can be
translated as "of" or "out of" and
"earth" is even in the MKJV. So I dont know why
Green brackets either of these as being added. But he is right
that the "the" is added.

Next is "made of dust" vs.
"earthy." Friberg has, "of existence in this
world made of earth or dust, earthy, earthly (1C
15.41); subst. ho choikos,the person made of
earth (1C 15.48)" So either rendering is possible.

Note also, Friberg indicates that in
the next verse, "the person made of earth" is the
proper translation of the substantive. In the plural, this is
basically the same as the NKJVs "those who are made of
dust." So it would seem about the only word the NKJV adds
and does not bracket is a "the."